It all depends on what your definition of "exclusive" is.

At the heart of the debate over warrantless wiretapping is whether FISA, by its own terms, is the exclusive means for the government to undertake electronic surveillance in counterespionage and counterterrorism cases.

The plain language of the FISA statute seems clear, stating that FISA is the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral and electronic communications may be conducted."

But nothing is ever that simple with the Bush Administration.

This week Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) released a declassified sentence from one of John Yoo's notorious memos, written while he was serving in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. In it, Yoo managed to rationalize away the exclusivity provision of FISA in order to justify a warrantless wiretapping program outside of the FISA framework, without judicial oversight or regular reports to Congress:

"Unless Congress made a clear statement in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that it sought to restrict presidential authority to conduct warrantless searches in the national security area -- which it has not -- then the statute must be construed to avoid [such] a reading."

Poof! Just like that, exclusivity disappeared and the Bush Administration was free to pursue warrantless wiretaping with the official blessing of the OLC. (Former OLC attorney Jack Goldsmith has described his office's memos as "advance pardons").

The Bush Administration says it no longer relies on the Yoo memo as the legal underpinning for warrantless wiretapping, pointing instead to perhaps an even weaker rationale, the post-9/11 AUMF:

The Justice Department told the senators it no longer relies on Yoo's FISA memo. "The 2001 statement addressing FISA does not reflect the current analysis of the department," wrote Brian A. Benczkowski, principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legislative Affairs.

He "respectfully" requested that if the senators "wish to make use of the 2001 statement in public debate," they refer to the administration's current position, which pins the authority to choose non-FISA procedures on a law that Congress actually passed, not merely its failure to rule out alternatives.

When Congress approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force of Sept. 18, 2001, it "confirmed and supplemented the President's Article II authority to conduct warrantless surveillance to prevent catastrophic attacks on the United States," Benczkowski said.

Exclusivity remains a key sticking point in passage of a new FISA law. Democrats are demanding language that erases whatever doubt there might be (although in fact there is none). The White House is balking.

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, fired by the Bush administration under suspect circumstances, speaks out in an interview with this Sunday's edition of the New York Times Magazine. Iglesias, now calling himself a "disillusioned Republican," ruminates on Karl Rove's role in his firing, being jilted by the administration following his dismissal and how he plans on voting in November. (Editor and Publisher)

On the same day House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers issued former Bush-adviser Karl Rove with a subpoena for his role in the firing of U.S. attorneys and the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (D), lawyers for Siegelman appealed his 2006-conviction for bribery. Siegelman claims the alleged bribes were contributions he asked for on behalf of the Alabama Education Lottery Foundation, and the sentence he received was overly harsh because he went public with suspicions that Republicans were responsible for his prosecution. (Associated Press)

A Pentagon audit has found $8.2 billion of taxpayer funds lost through contracts the U.S. Army has with contractors since the payments rarely followed federal rules. The absence of accountability in Iraq allowed contractors to receive massive payouts from the U.S. despite little or no record of results on the ground. (New York Times)

Read more »

At the same time that the House Judiciary Committee voted to issue a subpoena to former presidential adviser Karl Rove today, it released a May 5 letter from the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) disclosing that the OPR is investigating "allegations of selective prosecution relating to the prosecutions of Don Siegelman, Georgia Thompson, and Oliver Diaz and Paul Minor."

Most reader are already familiar with the Siegelman case. Georgia Thompson, you'll recall, was the Wisconsin state employee whose federal corruption conviction, obtained by Milwaukee-based U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic, was considered so flawed that it was thrown out by the appeals court immediately after oral arguments.

Diaz and Minor may be less familiar to TPMmuckraker readers. Diaz is a former Mississippi State Supreme Court justice, and Minor is a Mississippi attorney. Their prosecutions by U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton have been under scrutiny by the House Judiciary Committee as well:

Diaz and his ex-wife, Jennifer, were indicted in 2003 along with prominent Gulf Coast attorney Paul Minor and two former lower court judges on federal bribery allegations. Oliver Diaz was eventually cleared of all charges. The others were not.

Separately OPR is conducting a joint investigation of the U.S. attorney firings with the DOJ inspector general.

So much for all those negotiations:

The subpoena issued Thursday orders Rove to testify before the House panel on July 10. He is expected to face questions about the White House's role in firing nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, a Democrat.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers had negotiated with Rove's attorneys for more than a year over whether the former top political adviser to President Bush would testify voluntarily.

Will Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) do some ass-kicking (his words) now?

Late Update: Rep. Conyers released a statement following the vote to issue the subpoena:

"It is unfortunate that Mr. Rove has failed to cooperate with our requests," Conyers said. "Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate. Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters."

Later Update: Conyers released the latest correspondence between Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, and the committee, part of a lengthy back-and-forth between the parties. Apparently the subpoena was issued today after Luskin told the committee in a letter yesterday that Rove would not voluntarily testify, essentially ending the negotiations.

Still Later Update: Here's is the cover letter that Cnyers sent Luskin along with the subpoena.

Three more FEC nominees were referred today for votes by the full Senate. But, with Republicans blocking a floor vote, don't expect the deadlock at the FEC to end anytime soon.

Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central reports on the return of former U.S. Attorney and Karl Rove aide Tim Griffin to oppo research.

As I wrote on the main blog, TPM, especially TPMmuckraker, has a long history with Griffin. His return to doing oppo research for the RNC brings his story full circle.

For newer readers, here's our Tim Griffin reporting over the last 18 months or so. For you regulars, it's a trip down muck memory lane.

An unnamed FBI agent has come forth to report the exhaustive interrogation tactics used against Australian detainee Mamdouh Habib at Guantanamo Bay. The agent told investigators Habib was probed in two 15-hour sessions with little reprieve in between. Besides vomiting repeatedly from the stress of the tactics, Habib has claimed a female interrogator splashed him with what he believed was menstrual blood. (The Age)

After the Washington Post's four-part series on illegal immigrant detainees and the medical care they receive in Gitmo-like U.S. prisons, members of Congress are demanding answers from Dept. of Homeland Security officials, including Secretary Michael Chertoff, regarding the sub-standard care being provided. Top Senate leaders will question Chertoff and others today on the reports of negligence and detainee deaths while in the prisons. (Washington Post)

An investigation team led by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is seeking answers to how a federal database that records Medicaid spending by the government was changed through improper channels. The main concern is whether the matter, which could include tens of billions of dollars, was a significant processing error or evidence of a larger payout impropriety to states and drug companies. (Politico)

Read more »

The Washington Post digs deeper into that Justice Department Inspector General's report on the FBI role in detainee interrogations, specifically the contentious high-level Administration disputes over torture:

Two major policy splits are highlighted in the report's account of the long to-and-fro over the tactics. One reflected a clash of cultures between the experienced interrogators at the FBI who were looking to prosecute terrorism crimes, and military and CIA officials who were seeking rapid information about al-Qaeda and were willing to push legal boundaries to do it. The report shows that FBI agents appeared more concerned about the long view, while others wanted detainees to break immediately in the panicked days after Sept. 11, 2001.

The IG report reveals that the FBI was so concerned about the techniques being used that agents began collecting allegations of abuse and placing them in a "war crimes file." Although, as we've previously noted, the FBI ultimately took a hands-off approach to torture, and the file was soon closed with no action taken.

The usual characters -- Addington, Yoo, Ashcroft -- played a role, but the report reveals some new players, mid-level officials who opposed the torture regimen:

Bruce C. Swartz, a criminal division deputy in charge of international issues, repeatedly questioned the effectiveness of harsh interrogation tactics at White House meetings of a special group formed to decide detainee matters, with representatives present from the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA. ...

Besides Swartz, the others depicted as raising sustained objections are then-FBI assistant general counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman, who documented his concerns in written reports, and Pasquale D'Amuro, then the bureau's assistant director for counterterrorism. Michael Chertoff, who was then assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division, raised concerns in November 2002 about the effectiveness of the military's methods, although he said later he did not recall hearing assertions that they were illegal.

But with the pressure for harsh interrogation tactics coming from the very highest levels of government, the objections of mid-level officials were barely speed bumps on the road to torture as official U.S. policy.

After House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) called Rep. Henry Waxman's gavel-banging outburst "outrageous threats and intimidation" and demanded an apology, the diminutive Waxman laughed and had this to say: "Just look at me," he said. "How can you not quake in my presence?"

From the AP:

A Senate panel voted narrowly Wednesday to overturn EPA's decision blocking California and more than a dozen other states from limiting greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

The bill by California Democrat Barbara Boxer passed the Environment and Public Works committee 10 to 9, sending it to the full Senate.

One committee Democrat, Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, broke with others on his side of the aisle and voted "no." A Republican, John Warner of Virginia, voted "yes," allowing the bill to pass.

In December, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson turned down California's request for a Clean Air Act waiver that would have allowed the state to require automakers to cut global warming emissions by 30% in new cars and light trucks by 2016.

Boxer's bill would deem the waiver approved.

The focus of the news coverage of the report released yesterday by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine has been on what involvement the FBI had, if any, in the "enhanced interrogations" undertaken by the Bush Administration -- and to a lesser extent how the FBI's concerns were ignored at the highest levels of government.

Here's the Wall Street Journal's lede:

A Justice Department inquiry lauded Federal Bureau of Investigation agents for refraining from harsh interrogations of terror suspects but found fault with how senior officials handled agents' concerns about alleged abuses.

But as you dig down into the 370-page report (.pdf), it's most revealing for what it shows the U.S. government was actually doing to detainees. Because of the limited jurisdiction of the DOJ inspector general, the report was focused on the FBI. But in establishing the environment in which the FBI was operating, the report paints a picture of ghastly treatment of detainees by the United States on a consistent long-term basis.

In the course of his investigation, the IG interviewed 450 FBI agents who were detailed to Gitmo at one time or another. Nearly half reported witnessing or hearing about "rough or aggressive treatment of detainees, primarily by military investigators."

The report contains a chart of the conduct FBI agents reported at Gitmo and the manner in which the agents learned of the conduct. You can click on the image for a larger view:

Read more »

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has reacted angrily to Chairman Howard Waxman's gaveling down of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) yesterday during a hearing with EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.

Here's the statement from Boehner:

"Chairman Waxman's behavior in the Oversight & Government Reform Committee yesterday was appalling and beneath the dignity of the House. His abuse of power is further proof that House Democrats have broken their promise to run the most open and honest Congress in history. Moreover, his outrageous threats and intimidation against a fellow Committee colleague were not only unbecoming for a Member of Congress, but frankly, unbecoming for anyone who hopes to be treated as a professional. Chairman Waxman owes an apology to Mr. Issa, his Committee colleagues, and anyone who witnessed his shameful behavior. But more importantly, he owes the American people an apology because these types of heavy-handed threats have no place in the people's House."

The mass exodus of lobbyists from Sen. John McCain's campaign staff continues, as Randy Scheunemann of Orion Strategies jumped ship after records showed he represented the countries of Macedonia, Georgia and Taiwan from 2003 to March 1, 2008. Scheunemann was McCain's top foreign policy adviser, and stayed on-staff even after the campaign couldn't pay him late last year. (USA Today)

Ever since he took over as defense secretary for Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Gates has voiced his desire to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay. But Tuesday in front of a Senate hearing, Gates said closing the legally-ambiguous prison won't happen anytime soon since the government is "stuck in several ways." One of the main concerns of the U.S. government is that around 70 prisoners have been cleared to go home, yet either their home government won't take them back, or the U.S. is afraid their home government would "let them loose once we return them home," Gates said. (Reuters)

A new indictment was handed down against the CIA's former No. 3 official, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, in a spinoff of the scandal involving former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA). In addition to the original corruption charges, Foggo was indicted on allegations of accepting "sexual companionship" bribes in exchange for helping Brent Wilkes land cherry government contracts. (Associated Press)

Read more »

In a showdown between irresistible force and immovable object, the immovable object won.

Under withering questioning this afternoon from exasperated House government oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson held his ground, repeating the same non-responsive answers until the usually unflappable Waxman finally lost his temper.

Waxman was asking Johnson whether he had ever discussed two ozone rulings with the President. Johnson has previously testified that he had discussed California's emissions waiver, but now refused to say whether he had discussed the ozone rulings. The White House's involvement in overruling science-based recommendations from EPA staff in favor of more politically expedient alternatives is now the focus of Waxman's investigation.

As Waxman continued to press this line of questioning, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the highest ranking Republican present at the hearing, protested that Waxman was asking questions out of turn, prompting Waxman to threaten to have Issa removed from the hearing room.

This sort of song and dance from Johnson is now routine. He's managed to skate through multiple Senate and House hearings now, confirming his critics' impressions that he's a deceptive political hack, but avoiding actually answering the questions.

Given our love affair with Hans A. Von Spakovsky, I can't let his op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal go unnoted. Titled "Anatomy of a Beltway Smear Campaign," it is his embittered reaction to being forced, finally, to withdraw his nomination to the FEC last week:

During the past two years, while my nomination to the Federal Election Commission was pending - and before I withdrew last week - friends would call whenever the latest newspaper story or blog post attacking me was planted by political operatives and left-wing advocacy organizations.

They always asked the same question: Why was I putting up with the character assassination that has become the norm in Senate confirmation battles whenever a conservative is nominated for public office? ...

My own hard feelings will pass. But the political system has been damaged once more by the poisonous tactics of the left, and there is no reason to think that the whole sorry spectacle will not be repeated again and again and again. So long as such tactics are accepted and even encouraged by politicians and the media, it will become harder and harder to find ordinary citizens willing to submit to the character assassination that now passes for our confirmation process.

It was a little disappointing not to see TPM mentioned by name, but I couldn't help but think Hans was giving us a nod when he complained about being called a "vote suppressor."

When the Bush Administration rolled out charges against five Gitmo detainees last week for their alleged roles in the 9/11 attacks, there were a lot of questions about why the suspected 20th hijacker was not charged.

The Wall Street Journal today suggests one answer:

An alleged 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 conspiracy attempted suicide rather than face a Guantanamo Bay military commission and now suffers from such mental impairment that he can't adequately help in his own defense, his civilian lawyer says.

The contention suggests one possible reason the Defense Department last week dismissed charges against Mohammed al-Qahtani, who faced a potential death penalty if convicted in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. At the time, the administrator of the military commissions, Susan Crawford, gave no explanation. Mr. Qahtani remains under indefinite detention, and prosecutors may seek to file amended charges.

In 2002 Mr. Qahtani suffered a severe and prolonged interrogation that a Pentagon review later labeled "abusive and degrading." Some military investigators and prosecutors feared that the coercive treatment had ruined a potential case against Mr. Qahtani, under legal and ethical rules.

Intriguingly, we may yet learn more about al-Qahtani's interrogation, the Journal reports:

Friday, a military judge ordered such an inquiry for Guantanamo defendant Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's former driver, after a psychiatrist hired by the defense reported that Mr. Hamdan was suffering from "major depression" and expressed suicidal thoughts.

If a military judge were to order a similar examination for Mr. Qahtani, it could force the first independent inquiry into his interrogation, which to date has been reviewed by only the Pentagon.

The prospect of two key Guantanamo defendants being incapable of standing trial is another problem for a military commissions system already beset by legal challenges and staff unrest.

Late Update: Speaking today about al-Qahtani's suicide attempt, his lawyer told AP that she didn't learn of his suicide attempts until weeks after it occurred:

Gutierrez said the military did not inform her or al-Qahtani's family of the alleged suicide attempt. She said she learned of it when she went to visit him and noticed three scars on his hand, inside wrist and inner forearm near the elbow.

The prisoner seemed desolate during the meeting, said the attorney, who has met with him more than 20 times.

"This was the worst I have ever seen him in terms of his psychological state," she told The Associated Press. "He just can't take it anymore and just kept threatening to kill himself."

The DOJ inspector general's report on the FBI's role in detainee interrogations that we previewed yesterday has now been released -- all 370 pages plus appendices.

You can read the report in its entirety here (.pdf).

As Andrew Zajac at The Swamp notes, "The tortured title of the report -- A Review of the FBI's Involvement in and Observations of Detainee Interrogations in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq -- suggests a certain amount of hairsplitting and eggshell-walking."

We'll have more shortly.

Late Update: The bottom line of the report?

In Sum, while our report concluded that the FBI could have provided clearer guidance earlier, and while the FBI and DOJ could have pressed harder for resolution of FBI concerns about detainee treatment, we believe the FBI should be credited for its conduct and professionalism in detainee interrogations in the military zones and in generally avoiding participation in detainee abuse.

Later Update: The ACLU finds the report more troubling than exculpatory:

Jameel Jaffer, national security director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the report "shows a failure of leadership on the part of senior FBI officials."

"Senior FBI officials knew as early as 2002 that other agencies were using abusive interrogation methods," Jaffer said. "The report shows unequivocally, however, that the FBI's leadership failed to act aggressively to end the abuse."

Whistleblowers within the Federal Aviation Administration are believed to have been subject to bullying tactics and unwarranted punishment from FAA managers for reporting safety concerns, according to FAA documents. Included in the allegations are accusations that the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, recently under fire for chilling such whistleblowing, was slow to investigate claims made by FAA workers. (Wall St. Journal sub. req.)

Only one in five prisoners under U.S. custody in Iraq fall under one of the prime militant extremist groups opposing U.S. forces, say U.S. military analysts. The rest that are swept up in the search for such militants have no business being detained. (USA Today)

Charges were dismissed last week against Mohammed al-Qahtani, the alleged 20th hijacker on 9/11, most likely because his mental impairments disallowed him from participating in his own defense. A Pentagon review of Qahtani's treatment while at Gitmo found "abusive and degrading" interrogation tactics. Such treatment may have ultimately ruined the case against him, say some military prosecutors. (Wall St. Journal sub. req.)

Read more »

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, perhaps the Administration's most accomplished stonewaller, goes before the House government oversight committee today to testify -- again -- about his refusal to grant a waiver for California to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions despite unanimous staff support for such a waiver.

So far, Johnson has been a most reluctant witness, going so far as to schedule overseas trips to avoid attending congressional hearings. But Rep. Henry Waxman's committee staff has continued digging, reviewing thousands of documents and interviewing witnesses outside the public eye. Yesterday, in advance of Johnson's appearance, Waxman released a 20-page memo and supporting documents on what his committee has found so far.

The headliner of the memo is that a top EPA official conceded in sworn testimony that he believed that Johnson changed his mind about supporting the waiver after he talked to the White House:

In one deposition, EPA Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett told congressional investigators that Johnson in August and September was "very interested in a full grant of the waiver," then said he thought a partial grant of the waiver "was the best course of action."

California has the right to enact tougher air pollution laws under the Clean Air Act but must secure a waiver from the EPA.

Johnson denied California's request in December. When asked whether the administrator communicated with the White House in between his preference to do a partial grant and the ultimate decision, Burnett said, "I believe the answer is yes."

With a flourish, the EPA dismissed the news that Johnson has initially supported the waiver. "I equate this to deciding whether to wear a red tie or a blue tie in the morning," an EPA spokesperson told Reuters. "It doesn't make much difference until I put the tie on. To go through and suggest that maybe (Johnson) had a different opinion during the process -- none of that matters."

As the Post's Juliet Eilperin notes, the details of the White House involvement remain murky:

It remains unclear how exactly senior Bush officials intervened in the decision. Burnett said he was instructed not to answer questions about the White House's involvement, and the White House maintains that Johnson was not influenced by his talks with White House officials.

"As Administrator Johnson said in his statement, he made an independent decision and his decision was based on the facts and the law," said Kristen Hellmer, spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Given Johnson's previous refusals to divulge what he and the White House discussed, don't expect Waxman to make much progress with Johnson in today's hearing. The real fireworks may be between committee Democrats and Republicans. Ranking Member Tom Davis (R-VA) called yesterday's majority memo "a knee-jerk conclusion of nefarious intent by the White House derived from a manifestly incomplete investigation."

The Justice Department's inspector general has finally completed its report on the FBI's involvement in detainee interrogations:

Overall, the report gives the FBI fairly positive marks for repeatedly raising concerns between 2001 and 2004 about interrogation methods at three military prisons: Abu Ghraib in Iraq; in Bagram, Afghanistan; and at the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

According to two law enforcement officials who have seen it, the report's twelve chapters touch on a range of issues, including the interrogations of terror suspects who were thought to have high-value information. The officials spoke about the report on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.

"The FBI decided it would not participate in joint interrogations of detainees with other agencies in which techniques not allowed by the FBI were used," the report concluded, according to one law enforcement official who has seen it.

Fine's office also concluded that clearer guidance was needed for FBI agents left wondering what to do when interrogation tactics appeared to violate what would be allowed in the United States -- as opposed to under military law or in overseas detention centers, according to the second law enforcement official.

And the report raps the FBI in some cases for not immediately reporting the questionable interrogations or leaving the room when they were under way, the officials said.

The IG's report has been delayed in part because the Pentagon slow-rolled its review of the report for classified information.

FBI Director Robert Mueller testified to Congress last month that he had "reached out" to the Pentagon and the Department of Justice "in terms of activity that we were concerned might not be appropriate -- let me put it that way." But it was clear from his testimony that the Justice Department's essentially unilateral legalization of torture had prevented the FBI from investigating the abuses its agents witnessed.

We've documented Alphonso Jackson's tenure at HUD pretty thoroughly here: the cronyism, the politicization, the stonewalling of congressional investigators.

But let's not forget retaliation as a tool to further those ends.

Today the Washington Post reports on three minority HUD contractors who in very short spans went from few, if any, HUD contracts to many millions of dollar's worth. The common denominator for all three firms was that they were well-connected in GOP circles or with HUD officials.

Now that may be a scandal in itself, but so is what happened to the career HUD staffers who raised questions.

The contract specialist who flagged concerns about one of the companies was asked to return to her previous job within HUD, the Post reports. "At that point, the top procurement people -- Jo Baylor and Annette Hancock -- decided my services would no longer be needed because I was a pain in their neck," said Gloria Freeman, the specialist, who has since retired.

Another contracting specialist, also since retired, was reassigned to a different HUD job within weeks of finding that one of the companies had submitted an exaggerated claim under the contract and instead owed HUD money.

The Post doesn't link these three contractors directly to Jackson; rather, their rapid rise despite performance issues is symptomatic of HUD during the Jackson era. This isn't the first time retaliation has been alleged. The Philadelphia public housing director is suing for retaliation, alleging that his refusal to help out a Jackson buddy led HUD to take enforcement action against the housing authority as punishment. Emails previously published by the Washington Post suggest a warped management climate within HUD, with one HUD official asking another, "Would you like me to make his life less happy? If so, how?"

Did taxpayers foot the bill for Rep. Vito Fossella's hanky panky with Lt. Col. Laura Fay?

That's what Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington wants the House ethics committee to investigate:

CREW's request asks the ethics committee to focus on Fossella's official travel, some of which occurred with Fay when she was an Air Force liaison to Congress, and to look into whether Fossella essentially took advantage of such travel to foster an illicit relationship with Fay.

You can read the complaint here (.pdf).

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has seen a recent rash of resignations amongst his lobbyist-riddled campaign staff as he tries to live up to his image as an untethered candidate. The latest to leave the camp is McCain's national finance co-chair Thomas Loeffler, who runs The Loeffler Group. (Politico and Associated Press)

The long saga of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham continues to play out. Thomas Kontogiannis was sentenced to eight years and one month in the joint for money laundering through fraudulent mortgages in an effort to influence Cunningham. Duke himself received an eight-plus year sentence for accepting the bribes. Defense contractor and briber Brent Wilkes was given 12 years for his dealings with Cunningham. (San Diego Union-Tribune)

The fallout continues from the revelations that Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann used his position to unlawfully attempt to prosecute Gitmo detainees during tribunals. Now lawyers of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and four other prisoners, are calling for the abandonment of all charges levied against them due to Hartmann's failure to objectively handle such cases. (LA Times)

Read more »

Here's a new one to add to the federal government's blizzard of acronyms: CUI.

It stands for "Controlled Unclassified Information" and it's the latest designation the Bush Administration has chosen for a sprawling class of materials and documents that falls short of meeting the standards to be stamped as classified, but which for one reason or another is considered sensitive.

The new CUI designation was announced two Fridays ago, while the President was in Texas for Jenna's wedding, in a memorandum from the White House. Be advised: the memo doesn't make for light reading. [Late Update: It was first reported by Kos contributing editor Michael Clark.]

As Walter Pincus reports in the Washington Post, CUI replaces SBU: Sensitive But Unclassified. The SBU framework was a mess:

"Among the 20 departments and agencies . . . surveyed, there are at least 107 unique markings and more than 131 different labeling or handling processes and procedures for SBU information," Ted McNamara of the office of the director of national intelligence told the House Homeland Security Committee in April 2007.

The Archives was asked to create a single set of policies and procedures on the way materials should be marked, stored safely and disseminated. There are to be three categories of dissemination -- standard, specified and enhanced specified. The latter two require measures to reduce possible disclosure.

If the ostensible reason for the new designation is intended to regularize and standardize the system for handling that vast trove of unclassified data, there are nonetheless other reasons why the most secretive administration in history might be interested in this sweeping new designation.

For one, it may help shield information otherwise subject to FOIA from disclosure, at least indirectly. It will be a factor in determining disclosure:

The Archives will establish "enforcement mechanisms and penalties for improper handling of CUI." The "controlled" classification "may inform," but will not determine, whether information can be made public in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

Secondly, as Steven Aftergood, a senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, notes:

[Th]e definition of what information may qualify as CUI, which includes anything that "under law or policy" requires protection from unauthorized disclosure, is vague and expansive.

The saving grace may be that many of the hard decisions about how CUI will work have not been made, and likely won't be made until after President Bush leaves office. So federal officials may dodge one of the memo's more comical requirements: "oral communications should be prefaced with a statement describing the controls when necessary to ensure that recipients are aware of the information's status."

It's a requirement that leads the Post's Pincus to imagine the absurd scenario where one government official talking to another about terrorists will have to preface the conversation with: "What I am about to tell you is controlled unclassified information enhanced with specified dissemination."